Passing through my hometown of Chapin, S.C. always makes me nostalgic for the good ol’ days. This summer I passed through and remembered my first boss, Mr. Wicker.
Believe it or not, my first job was as a school bus driver. Until 1987, the legal age to drive a school bus in South Carolina was 16. I started driving as soon as I turned 16 in the tenth grade. Don’t worry, this isn’t one of my “dangerous idea” columns. Instead, it’s about the leadership lessons I learned from Mr. Wicker.
Although it seems bizarre now, the system actually worked pretty well. The student drivers got paid to drive to school and a great parking spot. The school got cheap labor that didn’t know what unions were.
But the brain behind it all was Mr. Wicker. Each year, Mr. Wicker hand-picked about 30 students to go through the testing and training process.
He was pretty good at this task because he was also the vice principal in charge of discipline. Everyone had a healthy fear of Mr. Wicker. Rumors abounded about the implements of torture hidden in his office.
This responsibility, however, allowed him to know just about everyone in town and he had a pretty good idea about which students were responsible enough to handle a bus full of K-12 students.
Mr. Wicker chose drivers from every walk of life: black and white, male and female, athletes and artists. He also liked to keep busses within families. My older brother drove as did my younger sister.
After putting us through the ringer to make sure we were able to safely perform our duties, Mr. Wicker trusted us and supported us. When any conflict arose, he assumed that the bus driver was in the right. If I thought a student needed to be suspended from the bus, he (or she) was suspended. My recommendations carried the same weight as any teacher’s.
I never abused this trust because I knew that it had to be earned. Mr. Wicker’s trust in us caused us to act in trustworthy ways.
With this trust, however, came great responsibility. Mr. Wicker was in the parking lot every afternoon as the busses left. One day I pulled out of the lot when a car was in my blind spot. The car had time to stop before we collided, but Mr. Wicker was waiting for me the next day with a stern warning.
When necessary, Mr. Wicker was willing to go beyond stern warnings. Most of the full-time drivers were seniors and the juniors and sophomores served as substitutes. I received a full-time route as a junior, however, because one of the senior drivers was allowing his friend to stand in the stairwell along the route. Mr. Wicker didn’t tolerate blatant disregard for safety procedures and the senior was fired and replaced by a junior.
I learned a lot more from Mr. Wicker, but these simple lessons would seem to be relevant in any organization. Leaders should select employees carefully, make sure they’re trained well, and then trust them to do their job.
If Mr. Wicker was able to trust a bunch of high school kids with the lives of hundreds of children, I wonder why so many organizational leaders have trouble trusting their grown employees.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Organizational Commitment
One thing that most employers want is a committed workforce. If employees are committed to the organization, they should work harder and stick around longer. Replacing employees is expensive, so organizational commitment is a good thing.
What most organizations don’t realize, however, is that there are different types of commitment.
Some people, for example, are committed to their organization because they truly want to be part of the organization. These people strongly believe in the values and goals of the organization.
Some people are committed to their organization because they believe that they ought to be part of the organization. This type of commitment is common in family-owned businesses where someone wants to leave, but feels a moral obligation to stay.
Finally, some people are committed to their organization because they feel like they have to be part of the organization. These people may believe that they can’t find any better option or that it would be too costly to leave.
Many managers believe that it doesn’t really matter what kind of commitment they generate, as long as their employees feel some type of commitment that makes them reluctant to leave.
But is any commitment good commitment?
Let’s answer that question by looking at a different type of relationship. It turns out that people who study marital commitment have identified the same three types of commitment in marriages.
Some people are committed to their spouse because of common goals and values. Others are committed to their spouse because they believe that they have a moral obligation to preserve the relationship. Finally, and you can see where this is going, some people are committed to their spouse because they don’t believe they can do any better or they believe that it would be too costly to leave.
Which kind of marriage seems like the most fulfilling and productive? It’s pretty obvious that people with the “want to” kind of commitment will have better relationships. On the other end of the spectrum, marriages that are based on the “have to” kind of commitment seem rather pathetic, if not dangerous.
Someone who wants to leave a marriage, but feels like they can’t, will rarely act in the best interest of the spouse. And, in fact, a person in this predicament may act in ways that harm the spouse out of resentment.
I think the same danger exists when organizations cultivate the “have to” kind of commitment among their employees. Employees who want to leave a company, but feel as though they can’t, will rarely act in the best interest of the company.
Unfortunately, out of the three types of commitment, the “have to” kind is probably the easiest to generate. All you have to do is offer high pay or expensive benefits.
People with high salaries and miserable work environments often end up feeling trapped. They want to leave, but are trapped by mortgages and car payments. These people will do enough to get by at work, but not much more.
The most difficult kind of commitment to generate is also the most valuable. The “want to” kind of commitment begins with organizational values and goals that employees are proud to help the organization pursue. The next step is a very carefully designed employee selection process. Finally, just like any spouse, employees want to feel appreciated and they want to have a voice in decisions that affect them.
What most organizations don’t realize, however, is that there are different types of commitment.
Some people, for example, are committed to their organization because they truly want to be part of the organization. These people strongly believe in the values and goals of the organization.
Some people are committed to their organization because they believe that they ought to be part of the organization. This type of commitment is common in family-owned businesses where someone wants to leave, but feels a moral obligation to stay.
Finally, some people are committed to their organization because they feel like they have to be part of the organization. These people may believe that they can’t find any better option or that it would be too costly to leave.
Many managers believe that it doesn’t really matter what kind of commitment they generate, as long as their employees feel some type of commitment that makes them reluctant to leave.
But is any commitment good commitment?
Let’s answer that question by looking at a different type of relationship. It turns out that people who study marital commitment have identified the same three types of commitment in marriages.
Some people are committed to their spouse because of common goals and values. Others are committed to their spouse because they believe that they have a moral obligation to preserve the relationship. Finally, and you can see where this is going, some people are committed to their spouse because they don’t believe they can do any better or they believe that it would be too costly to leave.
Which kind of marriage seems like the most fulfilling and productive? It’s pretty obvious that people with the “want to” kind of commitment will have better relationships. On the other end of the spectrum, marriages that are based on the “have to” kind of commitment seem rather pathetic, if not dangerous.
Someone who wants to leave a marriage, but feels like they can’t, will rarely act in the best interest of the spouse. And, in fact, a person in this predicament may act in ways that harm the spouse out of resentment.
I think the same danger exists when organizations cultivate the “have to” kind of commitment among their employees. Employees who want to leave a company, but feel as though they can’t, will rarely act in the best interest of the company.
Unfortunately, out of the three types of commitment, the “have to” kind is probably the easiest to generate. All you have to do is offer high pay or expensive benefits.
People with high salaries and miserable work environments often end up feeling trapped. They want to leave, but are trapped by mortgages and car payments. These people will do enough to get by at work, but not much more.
The most difficult kind of commitment to generate is also the most valuable. The “want to” kind of commitment begins with organizational values and goals that employees are proud to help the organization pursue. The next step is a very carefully designed employee selection process. Finally, just like any spouse, employees want to feel appreciated and they want to have a voice in decisions that affect them.
Are benefits beneficial?
In my last column I proposed the dangerous idea that job experience is overrated. I have a few more dangerous ideas and was planning to save them for later, but one of these dangerous ideas seems especially relevant now.
Let me preface this idea by stating that I’m not taking sides in the current school budget dilemma. Most organizations are facing the same situation, but the school budget allows us to view the problem with some numbers.
Let’s start with a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that we’re starting a brand new school system. We have 68 million dollars to use to educate approximately 11,000 students. How should the money be used to best accomplish the goal?
We could probably come up with a nice long list of ways to spend the money. My list would start with good teachers, books, computers, supplies, furniture, utilities, and building maintenance.
But if we were starting from scratch, how long would it take for someone to suggest that we should spend $200,000 of the money on dental care for teachers’ spouses? That’s not in my top ten and probably wouldn’t be in my top hundred.
Again, I’m not taking sides in the current debate, I’m simply offering this “dangerous” idea: I think employee benefits are a bad way to accomplish what most organizations want to accomplish.
Most organizations use employee benefits to help attract and retain the best employees. They keep people happy. But what if that’s not true? Let’s follow the logic.
Do the best teachers tend to have spouses with bad teeth? We can see the same kind of problem as we examine the most popular employee benefits. On average, companies spend an amount equal to 40 percent of their payroll on employee benefits. Companies spend the most on health insurance, retirement savings, and paid time off.
If a space alien landed in the US and observed this pattern, I’m sure they would ask why we pay so much to attract sickly people who want to get paid for not working.
The idea that benefits help to attract and retain the best employees is certainly debatable. But even if we accept the fact that good employees expect the most popular benefits, we still need to ask: Are benefits the most cost-effective way to “buy” employee loyalty?
The school budget for next year includes about $7.5 million for health insurance. I wonder how many teachers would rather just divide up that pool and take the cash?
Here’s the part where the benefits expert points out that taxes must be paid on the cash but not on the insurance. And the whole idea behind a group plan is to buy insurance at a discount.
That’s true, but I believe that most families can buy perfectly acceptable health insurance plans for much less and would still have some left over to supplement their salaries.
The problem is that we (employees) never shop around. So the cost of the group plan continues to rise, employers continue to pay the premiums because they don’t believe they have a choice, and money gets diverted from the organization’s real goals.
I’m almost to the bottom of the page, but I feel obligated to also point out that I’ve never met an employee who preferred spousal dental care over a positive and supportive work environment.
Let me preface this idea by stating that I’m not taking sides in the current school budget dilemma. Most organizations are facing the same situation, but the school budget allows us to view the problem with some numbers.
Let’s start with a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that we’re starting a brand new school system. We have 68 million dollars to use to educate approximately 11,000 students. How should the money be used to best accomplish the goal?
We could probably come up with a nice long list of ways to spend the money. My list would start with good teachers, books, computers, supplies, furniture, utilities, and building maintenance.
But if we were starting from scratch, how long would it take for someone to suggest that we should spend $200,000 of the money on dental care for teachers’ spouses? That’s not in my top ten and probably wouldn’t be in my top hundred.
Again, I’m not taking sides in the current debate, I’m simply offering this “dangerous” idea: I think employee benefits are a bad way to accomplish what most organizations want to accomplish.
Most organizations use employee benefits to help attract and retain the best employees. They keep people happy. But what if that’s not true? Let’s follow the logic.
Do the best teachers tend to have spouses with bad teeth? We can see the same kind of problem as we examine the most popular employee benefits. On average, companies spend an amount equal to 40 percent of their payroll on employee benefits. Companies spend the most on health insurance, retirement savings, and paid time off.
If a space alien landed in the US and observed this pattern, I’m sure they would ask why we pay so much to attract sickly people who want to get paid for not working.
The idea that benefits help to attract and retain the best employees is certainly debatable. But even if we accept the fact that good employees expect the most popular benefits, we still need to ask: Are benefits the most cost-effective way to “buy” employee loyalty?
The school budget for next year includes about $7.5 million for health insurance. I wonder how many teachers would rather just divide up that pool and take the cash?
Here’s the part where the benefits expert points out that taxes must be paid on the cash but not on the insurance. And the whole idea behind a group plan is to buy insurance at a discount.
That’s true, but I believe that most families can buy perfectly acceptable health insurance plans for much less and would still have some left over to supplement their salaries.
The problem is that we (employees) never shop around. So the cost of the group plan continues to rise, employers continue to pay the premiums because they don’t believe they have a choice, and money gets diverted from the organization’s real goals.
I’m almost to the bottom of the page, but I feel obligated to also point out that I’ve never met an employee who preferred spousal dental care over a positive and supportive work environment.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Dangerous Ideas
This week I found a new book entitled “What is your dangerous idea?” Over one hundred scientists were asked to describe an idea that, if true, would have profound, and probably unpopular, effects on society. David Lykken, for example, suggested that parenting, like driving, should require a license. Sam Harris suggested that science must destroy religion.
The main point of the book is that dangerous ideas are worth considering, even if they are unpopular and even if they turn out to be wrong.
This book got me thinking about dangerous ideas around the workplace. I’d like to go ahead and throw out one of my own. I believe that experience is overrated.
Employers place a great deal of value on experience. Take a look at today’s employment ads and you’ll see that most job openings require some level of experience. Employers pay more to hire experienced workers and they give raises to employees as they accumulate experience. All of this is based on the assumption that experienced workers are more valuable than less experienced.
What if that’s not true?
I’d like to suggest that experience, per se, offers very little value. And just to add fuel to the fire, I’ll also argue that, in some cases, experienced workers actually perform worse than those with little or no experience.
Evidence supporting this idea comes from a variety of areas, but I have a few favorite examples. One deals with the ability to detect deception. Many studies have been done on the ability of people to determine if another person is lying. Some of those studies compare the accuracy of different groups. In a recent summary of this research, college students were found to have an average accuracy rate of 54%. Police officers and detectives, who presumably have more experience detecting deception, had an average accuracy rate of 53%.
In the realm of employment interviews, research shows that experienced interviewers exhibit the same types of biases as inexperienced interviewers.
A study in the United Kingdom found that experienced loan officers performed worse than college students at predicting loan defaults.
In sports, there is no evidence that coaches with more experience lead their teams to greater success. Major League Baseball’s most experienced manager, Tony LaRussa, has a losing record this season despite having a team loaded with talent.
The underlying problem with valuing experience is that we tend to equate experience with knowledge and knowledge with job performance. I do believe that more job knowledge usually leads to better performance. But I don’t believe that people automatically learn more just by existing in their jobs.
Instead, learning requires active effort and deliberate practice. Some people do this and can learn new things about their jobs very quickly. Others, however, do not make an active effort to learn and are able to survive in their jobs by doing just enough to get by.
If this dangerous idea turns out to be true, there are three primary things that organizations should do differently. First, they should rely less on experience during the selection process and rely more on applicant intelligence or ability to learn. Second, organizations should attempt to create more deliberate learning experiences. Finally, organizations should reward learning more and reward hanging around less.
This idea won’t be popular. But at least I’m not suggesting that we destroy religion.
The main point of the book is that dangerous ideas are worth considering, even if they are unpopular and even if they turn out to be wrong.
This book got me thinking about dangerous ideas around the workplace. I’d like to go ahead and throw out one of my own. I believe that experience is overrated.
Employers place a great deal of value on experience. Take a look at today’s employment ads and you’ll see that most job openings require some level of experience. Employers pay more to hire experienced workers and they give raises to employees as they accumulate experience. All of this is based on the assumption that experienced workers are more valuable than less experienced.
What if that’s not true?
I’d like to suggest that experience, per se, offers very little value. And just to add fuel to the fire, I’ll also argue that, in some cases, experienced workers actually perform worse than those with little or no experience.
Evidence supporting this idea comes from a variety of areas, but I have a few favorite examples. One deals with the ability to detect deception. Many studies have been done on the ability of people to determine if another person is lying. Some of those studies compare the accuracy of different groups. In a recent summary of this research, college students were found to have an average accuracy rate of 54%. Police officers and detectives, who presumably have more experience detecting deception, had an average accuracy rate of 53%.
In the realm of employment interviews, research shows that experienced interviewers exhibit the same types of biases as inexperienced interviewers.
A study in the United Kingdom found that experienced loan officers performed worse than college students at predicting loan defaults.
In sports, there is no evidence that coaches with more experience lead their teams to greater success. Major League Baseball’s most experienced manager, Tony LaRussa, has a losing record this season despite having a team loaded with talent.
The underlying problem with valuing experience is that we tend to equate experience with knowledge and knowledge with job performance. I do believe that more job knowledge usually leads to better performance. But I don’t believe that people automatically learn more just by existing in their jobs.
Instead, learning requires active effort and deliberate practice. Some people do this and can learn new things about their jobs very quickly. Others, however, do not make an active effort to learn and are able to survive in their jobs by doing just enough to get by.
If this dangerous idea turns out to be true, there are three primary things that organizations should do differently. First, they should rely less on experience during the selection process and rely more on applicant intelligence or ability to learn. Second, organizations should attempt to create more deliberate learning experiences. Finally, organizations should reward learning more and reward hanging around less.
This idea won’t be popular. But at least I’m not suggesting that we destroy religion.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Sheriff Taylor on Leadership
One of these days I’m going to get around to writing a book. My first book will be entitled The Leadership Secrets of Sheriff Andy Taylor. Like most red-blooded Americans, I’m a huge fan of The Andy Griffith Show. One of the things I love about the show is the fact that Andy demonstrates many of the qualities of a great leader.
The first episode that comes to mind is Barney and the Cave Rescue. Deputy Barney Fife starts his day off by mistakenly trying to arrest the bank president going into the bank. Fortunately the town picnic is later that day so Barney can forget this embarrassing mistake.
At the picnic, Andy takes his girlfriend, Helen, to explore an old abandoned mine. Barney and his girlfriend, Thelma Lou, follow some time later. When they enter the cave, Barney and Thelma Lou hear the rumbling of a slide and escape just in time. Then they realize that Andy and Helen must be trapped inside. Barney immediately organizes the town into a huge rescue effort.
Unbeknownst to Barney, Andy and Helen are able to escape through another opening and head home to change out of their dirty clothes. While at home, Andy turns on the radio and finds out that the town is frantically trying to rescue them from the cave.
Here’s where the leadership starts. If I were Andy in this situation, I probably would have returned to the picnic and announced that I was able to save myself and my damsel in distress.
Instead, Andy and Helen crawl back in the cave and allow Barney to rescue them. Andy helps Barney be successful. In my mind, this is one of the most important things leaders do. Leaders should help followers be successful.
Some may argue that Barney doesn’t deserve to be successful in this situation. Barney was wrong, just like he was wrong earlier that day. On the other hand, in both situations, Barney was acting on the only information he had. He saw a problem and took action.
So what do leaders gain by helping followers be successful? In this case, Barney was able to recover credibility in the eyes of those who saw him mess up earlier in the day. Both leaders and followers are better off when the followers are respected by others.
Another thing that Andy gains by helping Barney succeed is a more confident follower. Barney’s confidence had taken a hit earlier in the day. Discovering that Andy didn’t really need to be rescued would have been an even bigger hit. There’s actually a fair amount of research showing that confidence raises the level of future job performance.
Yes, this is just a TV show and cave rescues are dangerous and expensive. So I’m not recommending that anyone should stage such an elaborate emergency. But I think leaders have similar kinds of opportunities every day.
Why don’t more leaders “crawl back in the cave”? Crawling back in the cave means that leaders will receive less credit. Crawling back in the cave means that leaders will have to humble themselves a bit. Crawling back in the cave means that leaders must realize that their followers are also critical to their success. That’s also the kind of leader that most of us would gladly follow.
The first episode that comes to mind is Barney and the Cave Rescue. Deputy Barney Fife starts his day off by mistakenly trying to arrest the bank president going into the bank. Fortunately the town picnic is later that day so Barney can forget this embarrassing mistake.
At the picnic, Andy takes his girlfriend, Helen, to explore an old abandoned mine. Barney and his girlfriend, Thelma Lou, follow some time later. When they enter the cave, Barney and Thelma Lou hear the rumbling of a slide and escape just in time. Then they realize that Andy and Helen must be trapped inside. Barney immediately organizes the town into a huge rescue effort.
Unbeknownst to Barney, Andy and Helen are able to escape through another opening and head home to change out of their dirty clothes. While at home, Andy turns on the radio and finds out that the town is frantically trying to rescue them from the cave.
Here’s where the leadership starts. If I were Andy in this situation, I probably would have returned to the picnic and announced that I was able to save myself and my damsel in distress.
Instead, Andy and Helen crawl back in the cave and allow Barney to rescue them. Andy helps Barney be successful. In my mind, this is one of the most important things leaders do. Leaders should help followers be successful.
Some may argue that Barney doesn’t deserve to be successful in this situation. Barney was wrong, just like he was wrong earlier that day. On the other hand, in both situations, Barney was acting on the only information he had. He saw a problem and took action.
So what do leaders gain by helping followers be successful? In this case, Barney was able to recover credibility in the eyes of those who saw him mess up earlier in the day. Both leaders and followers are better off when the followers are respected by others.
Another thing that Andy gains by helping Barney succeed is a more confident follower. Barney’s confidence had taken a hit earlier in the day. Discovering that Andy didn’t really need to be rescued would have been an even bigger hit. There’s actually a fair amount of research showing that confidence raises the level of future job performance.
Yes, this is just a TV show and cave rescues are dangerous and expensive. So I’m not recommending that anyone should stage such an elaborate emergency. But I think leaders have similar kinds of opportunities every day.
Why don’t more leaders “crawl back in the cave”? Crawling back in the cave means that leaders will receive less credit. Crawling back in the cave means that leaders will have to humble themselves a bit. Crawling back in the cave means that leaders must realize that their followers are also critical to their success. That’s also the kind of leader that most of us would gladly follow.
Small Companies Can Be Great Too
I’ve written before about Fortune Magazine’s annual list of the Best Companies to Work For. Google, Inc. won the latest award by offering an innovative atmosphere and unique benefits like free meals.
Companies in the Upper Cumberland may find it difficult to identify with companies like Google. Fortune’s list only includes companies with at least 1000 employees.
Smaller companies simply can’t afford to provide the kinds of environments provided by such large companies. Or can they?
Four years ago, the Society for Human Resource Management began a similar contest aimed at small and medium-sized companies. The most recent winners were announced at SHRM’s annual conference in June.
This year’s winner in the small company division was Badger Mining Corporation of Berlin, Wisconsin. What immediately stands out about this company is that mining is widely regarded as one of the dirtiest and most dangerous industries in the world. Yet this company finds a way to turn the worst working environment into the best.
The 180 employees at Badger Mining make sand. Sounds pretty glamorous doesn’t it?
Badger Mining didn’t end up at the top of the list by offering the same kinds of perks as Google. They offer paid time off and retirement benefits that are pretty normal. The things that make Badger Mining unique are things that reflect an underlying culture that values each employee.
Employee health is protected in this dangerous industry through award-winning safety programs, health insurance, and a comprehensive wellness program. Family priorities are protected by allowing employees to work flexible schedules and take time off to attend to family matters. The financial needs of employees are met by a generous profit-sharing plan. For some reason, employees who get to share the profit make more of it.
Any new initiative at Badger Mining seeks the advice and input of everyone who will be affected. This practice takes advantage of the expertise in the company. It also increases acceptance of change when the organization must adapt to new challenges.
Aside from Badger Mining, one other company stood out on the list of best small and medium-sized companies to work for. The Right Thing, Inc. is a company with 286 employees based in Findlay, Ohio. They help other companies outsource human resource functions like recruiting and selection. Their practices speak volumes about their values.
Everyone in the company reports to the CEO. Everyone works in the same-sized cubicle. Everyone meets with the CEO every other month. And fifty percent of the profit is divided among the full-time and part-time employees.
On average, employees at The Right Thing spend 220 hours per year in training and professional development. They also receive unlimited paid sick days.
So how do Badger Mining and The Right Thing prevent employees from abusing the flexibility and freedom? Both companies believe in the same philosophy: Hire good people. Give them a reason for wanting the company to succeed and then help them succeed. Amazingly enough, these kinds of companies have no trouble finding good people.
I’m sure we have great places to work in the Upper Cumberland. In fact, I’d love to learn more about them. If you have a great place to work, let me hear about it. Contact me at ttimmerman@tntech.edu.
Companies in the Upper Cumberland may find it difficult to identify with companies like Google. Fortune’s list only includes companies with at least 1000 employees.
Smaller companies simply can’t afford to provide the kinds of environments provided by such large companies. Or can they?
Four years ago, the Society for Human Resource Management began a similar contest aimed at small and medium-sized companies. The most recent winners were announced at SHRM’s annual conference in June.
This year’s winner in the small company division was Badger Mining Corporation of Berlin, Wisconsin. What immediately stands out about this company is that mining is widely regarded as one of the dirtiest and most dangerous industries in the world. Yet this company finds a way to turn the worst working environment into the best.
The 180 employees at Badger Mining make sand. Sounds pretty glamorous doesn’t it?
Badger Mining didn’t end up at the top of the list by offering the same kinds of perks as Google. They offer paid time off and retirement benefits that are pretty normal. The things that make Badger Mining unique are things that reflect an underlying culture that values each employee.
Employee health is protected in this dangerous industry through award-winning safety programs, health insurance, and a comprehensive wellness program. Family priorities are protected by allowing employees to work flexible schedules and take time off to attend to family matters. The financial needs of employees are met by a generous profit-sharing plan. For some reason, employees who get to share the profit make more of it.
Any new initiative at Badger Mining seeks the advice and input of everyone who will be affected. This practice takes advantage of the expertise in the company. It also increases acceptance of change when the organization must adapt to new challenges.
Aside from Badger Mining, one other company stood out on the list of best small and medium-sized companies to work for. The Right Thing, Inc. is a company with 286 employees based in Findlay, Ohio. They help other companies outsource human resource functions like recruiting and selection. Their practices speak volumes about their values.
Everyone in the company reports to the CEO. Everyone works in the same-sized cubicle. Everyone meets with the CEO every other month. And fifty percent of the profit is divided among the full-time and part-time employees.
On average, employees at The Right Thing spend 220 hours per year in training and professional development. They also receive unlimited paid sick days.
So how do Badger Mining and The Right Thing prevent employees from abusing the flexibility and freedom? Both companies believe in the same philosophy: Hire good people. Give them a reason for wanting the company to succeed and then help them succeed. Amazingly enough, these kinds of companies have no trouble finding good people.
I’m sure we have great places to work in the Upper Cumberland. In fact, I’d love to learn more about them. If you have a great place to work, let me hear about it. Contact me at ttimmerman@tntech.edu.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Tough Times at Wal-Mart
Cynthia Haddad worked as a pharmacist at Wal-Mart for ten years before the retail giant fired her. Wal-Mart claimed that she violated company policies. She claimed that male managers were never fired for the same mistakes. She also had the gall to ask for the same pay as males doing the same job.
Last week, a jury in Massachusetts believed Haddad’s side of the story and awarded her two million dollars.
Also in the news last week, state courts in New Mexico, Missouri, and New Jersey agreed that lawsuits against Wal-Mart could proceed as class-action suits. Thousands of current and former Wal-Mart employees are claiming that they were forced to work off the clock without pay. Workers in Pennsylvania, California, and Colorado have already won millions of dollars from Wal-Mart for similar claims.
These cases are small potatoes, however, compared to the sex discrimination case Wal-Mart faces. Filed in June, 2001, the largest ever civil rights class action lawsuit asserts that Wal-Mart discriminated against women in a variety of ways. In this case, the class includes 1.6 million current and former female employees.
I’ve seen some of the data from this case and the evidence is pretty overwhelming. In every job from cashier to regional vice president, women made less than men. Wal-Mart defended itself by claiming that pay was based on performance and experience. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart’s own data showed that female employees had higher performance and more experience, on average, than male employees.
If you had invested $100 in Wal-Mart stock on June 1, 2001, you would have about $95 today. This seems pretty bizarre considering the fact that Wal-Mart has reported record profit levels every year during this time period.
Personally, I believe that Wal-Mart’s stock price is being held back by the uncertainty associated with these lawsuits. What would happen if a jury decided that 1.6 million women deserved the same award as Cynthia Haddad? That’s 3.2 trillion dollars.
Surely the judgment couldn’t reach that figure, but what if each plaintiff is awarded an average of ten thousand dollars? That’s still 16 billion dollars. Even for Wal-Mart, that’s a huge hit.
Wal-Mart does so many things well, how could they possibly allow such basic human resource blunders? I think the root of the problem was revealed in a 2004 Workforce Magazine article (People Problems on Every Aisle). In that article, a former Wal-Mart human resource manager explained that store-level human resource managers were typically hired off the street with little concern for professionalism. They typically had very little knowledge of human resource practices or employment law.
With little expertise they would also have little power over store managers who were pressured to lower labor costs. You mix it all together and you have people working off the clock and incompetent manager favorites being promoted.
One might still wonder why Wal-Mart’s corporate leaders would allow this to happen. The larger problem at Wal-Mart, and lots of other companies, is that they do not believe in the value of a strong human resource function.
Since they don’t believe in its value, they don’t invest in it. Since they don’t invest in it, they don’t receive any value from it. Then they’ve convinced themselves they were right from the beginning.
I’m not sure if these lawsuits will end up costing Wal-Mart billions or trillions of dollars; but I do know that competent and professionally trained human resource professionals make a positive impact on organizations.
Last week, a jury in Massachusetts believed Haddad’s side of the story and awarded her two million dollars.
Also in the news last week, state courts in New Mexico, Missouri, and New Jersey agreed that lawsuits against Wal-Mart could proceed as class-action suits. Thousands of current and former Wal-Mart employees are claiming that they were forced to work off the clock without pay. Workers in Pennsylvania, California, and Colorado have already won millions of dollars from Wal-Mart for similar claims.
These cases are small potatoes, however, compared to the sex discrimination case Wal-Mart faces. Filed in June, 2001, the largest ever civil rights class action lawsuit asserts that Wal-Mart discriminated against women in a variety of ways. In this case, the class includes 1.6 million current and former female employees.
I’ve seen some of the data from this case and the evidence is pretty overwhelming. In every job from cashier to regional vice president, women made less than men. Wal-Mart defended itself by claiming that pay was based on performance and experience. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart’s own data showed that female employees had higher performance and more experience, on average, than male employees.
If you had invested $100 in Wal-Mart stock on June 1, 2001, you would have about $95 today. This seems pretty bizarre considering the fact that Wal-Mart has reported record profit levels every year during this time period.
Personally, I believe that Wal-Mart’s stock price is being held back by the uncertainty associated with these lawsuits. What would happen if a jury decided that 1.6 million women deserved the same award as Cynthia Haddad? That’s 3.2 trillion dollars.
Surely the judgment couldn’t reach that figure, but what if each plaintiff is awarded an average of ten thousand dollars? That’s still 16 billion dollars. Even for Wal-Mart, that’s a huge hit.
Wal-Mart does so many things well, how could they possibly allow such basic human resource blunders? I think the root of the problem was revealed in a 2004 Workforce Magazine article (People Problems on Every Aisle). In that article, a former Wal-Mart human resource manager explained that store-level human resource managers were typically hired off the street with little concern for professionalism. They typically had very little knowledge of human resource practices or employment law.
With little expertise they would also have little power over store managers who were pressured to lower labor costs. You mix it all together and you have people working off the clock and incompetent manager favorites being promoted.
One might still wonder why Wal-Mart’s corporate leaders would allow this to happen. The larger problem at Wal-Mart, and lots of other companies, is that they do not believe in the value of a strong human resource function.
Since they don’t believe in its value, they don’t invest in it. Since they don’t invest in it, they don’t receive any value from it. Then they’ve convinced themselves they were right from the beginning.
I’m not sure if these lawsuits will end up costing Wal-Mart billions or trillions of dollars; but I do know that competent and professionally trained human resource professionals make a positive impact on organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
